> Until this change, customers who have used fewer resources have covered the costs, in a way, for other customers who have used much more resources.
That is utter nonsense. If the customers who are 'covering the costs' have a problem, they can move? Yet even still they are charging those SAME customers who now actually receive less resources, even if they were using them or not.
The problem with their old pricing structure is that it attracts high-utilization customers who will max out their transfer every month. But yes, they raised prices for all of us. Their pricing was so low, my guess is it was never profitable enough to be worthwhile long-term. It brought them a lot of business, some of which they'd be happier without under the old terms.
The reasoning the gave still doesn't pass the smell test. If it's as they say, then they wouldn't increase the price they would tariff the traffic. Like other providers.
Don't increase prices and claim it's to help the little guy.
That is utter nonsense. If the customers who are 'covering the costs' have a problem, they can move? Yet even still they are charging those SAME customers who now actually receive less resources, even if they were using them or not.